Given that I've never liked tv preachers, I pay little attention to him. But from what I have seen of him, he seems to be into that wealth gospel movement. I've even heard he had an entire service without mentioning Jesus or mentioning Jesus very little.

Not in the sense that he's saying anything highly erroneous, but on the other hand he's also not saying much of significance. It mostly just seems like a waste of time to me, which could be "bad for you", but if so it would be in a rather different sense than what you might be imagining.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 04:48:45 AM by deusveritasest »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I have to say that, on the whole, I really like this guy. Yes, I think that we have to be careful about this whole "wealth gospel" thing, and he does seem to be really into that. But if you watch him with a discerning eye, I think you can get a lot out of what he's saying. IMHO he is genuinely positive and upbeat and has a real purity of heart and humility. I've seen him talk sometimes and just sort of shrugged my shoulders and said to myself "so what?", but at other times, I think he has a really positive simple and joyous message, one that is maybe not so simple as you might think. (I can't say the same thing for his wife, I don't find her to have the same qualities as him at all.) So, at worst, I think Joel is harmless to an Orthodox Christian who can weed out the things that are off base in his message, but at best, I think he has some really positive messages to convey that people might do well to listen to.

How does this touch on our views towards "praying with heretics" and not attending their services? We've had plenty of discussion on those topics already. Is it OK to participate via the television, just as long as we don't physically walk into a heretics' building? It seems to me same rules apply, and this ends up being a personal matter to be addressed pastorally.

I have to say that, on the whole, I really like this guy. Yes, I think that we have to be careful about this whole "wealth gospel" thing, and he does seem to be really into that. But if you watch him with a discerning eye, I think you can get a lot out of what he's saying. IMHO he is genuinely positive and upbeat and has a real purity of heart and humility. I've seen him talk sometimes and just sort of shrugged my shoulders and said to myself "so what?", but at other times, I think he has a really positive simple and joyous message, one that is maybe not so simple as you might think. (I can't say the same thing for his wife, I don't find her to have the same qualities as him at all.) So, at worst, I think Joel is harmless to an Orthodox Christian who can weed out the things that are off base in his message, but at best, I think he has some really positive messages to convey that people might do well to listen to.

So this is what "humility" looks like to you?:

Satan often appears as an angel of light, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. This guy is a heretic. I wouldn't spend one minute listening to him. Plenty of Orthodox material out there - don't waste your time listening to heretics.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 01:59:28 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

No. "Humility" to me looks like one Orthodox Christian writing a message on an Orthodox message board to another Orthodox Christian in a very condescending and self-righteous manner, knowing nothing of the other person`s background in the Church or even stopping to consider that there might be something in what he has to say or that there might be nuances of opinion to consider. That is what "humility" looks like to me.

Given that I've never liked tv preachers, I pay little attention to him. But from what I have seen of him, he seems to be into that wealth gospel movement. I've even heard he had an entire service without mentioning Jesus or mentioning Jesus very little.

It's funny, because I watched the guy for years pretty regularly when I was a Protestant actually and he very rarely ever mentioned money or God making people rich etc. I mean I watched him basically every week from the end of 1999, till about 2003, and I never recall him talking about money except a handful of times. In my super Orthodox days I refused to watch him, or anything "not Orthodox" and so spent a few years away from him, but I've taken to watching him again in recent years. While it is true that in the last couple of years he does talk about money more often I still shake my head when I hear the criticism that he is a "wealth preachers", I just don't see it or hear it. And I admit, I do tend to catch his show on Sunday mornings while I'm getting read for Church. Not every week like back in my Protestant days, but maybe a couple times per month. I often go a couple months without ever hearing him mention a word about money, or wealth as in financial riches. He is into the idea that God will take care of you no matter what, but most of the time he simply isn't talking about money. I think it's fair to criticize some of his messages, and sometimes I feel like he lives in a world where everything always works out for Christians, what I call "never, never land" type of thinking, but other times I find his messages uplifting, encouraging, and sometimes laced with decent advice. Most of it is just common sense probably, but I don't think he's that bad, if taken with a grain of salt.

At least he isn't wearing $50,000 with of jewels, dressing liking a Roman Emperor, wearing a crown, demanding people bow to him, and throwing a hissy fit if an Altar boy makes a mistake during the Great Entrance. Humility shouldn't be judged by mere appearances, but by actions.

At least he isn't wearing $50,000 with of jewels, dressing liking a Roman Emperor, wearing a crown, demanding people bow to him, and throwing a hissy fit if an Altar boy makes a mistake during the Great Entrance. Humility shouldn't be judged by mere appearances, but by actions.

You're mixing categories, unless you intend to argue one cannot be BOTH humble and an orthodox bishop. Jewels, crowns, imperial garb, and bows go with the job for a bishop. It's not his choice: it would be arrogant and prideful NOT to wear those things (out of false humility) in disobedience to the church. A bishop does not have to demand that people bow to him; they do it on their own. The bishop is not inventing all these things.

However, it is the bishop's choice to throw hissy-fits etc. But crown-wearing does not always mean hissy-fit-throwing.

Joel Osteen has CHOSEN quite independently to act like a megalomaniac. Building a megachurch and putting yourself on a stage with a huge image of YOU is an action, not an appearance.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 03:19:27 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

While it is true that in the last couple of years he does talk about money more often I still shake my head when I hear the criticism that he is a "wealth preachers", I just don't see it or hear it.

I think the "wealth preaching" is usually implicit rather than explicit.

Quote

I think it's fair to criticize some of his messages, and sometimes I feel like he lives in a world where everything always works out for Christians, what I call "never, never land" type of thinking, but other times I find his messages uplifting, encouraging, and sometimes laced with decent advice.

You're mixing categories, unless you intend to argue one cannot be BOTH humble and an orthodox bishop. Jewels, crowns, imperial garb, and bows go with the job for a bishop. It's not his choice:

And you think the Apostles dressed like that?

While it is not entirely the choice of individual Bishops in our day and age, it is historical fact that Bishops did not always dress as they do today. Most of what we see as Bishop's apparel today is a cross pollination from the Roman aristocracy and the Byzantine Imperial Court. Some of it is a carry over from the Old Covenant, but most of it has it's direct lineage from the Roman Empire. Now the theologians have over time interpreted these things in theological terms, superimposing OT symbolism upon it etc, but that doesn't change the fact that many people find it weird that the leaders of a religion founded by a poor 1st century peasant who was born in a cave are today dressing as though they were royalty. While you're correct this is simply how things are in the Church today and individual Bishops do not have a choice of wearing a crown, it is their own personal preference as to how lavish their vestments, crowns, crosses and lifestyles actually are. Indeed they must wear vestments, but it their choice if those vestments are made with threads of spun gold or not.

Quote

A bishop does not have to demand that people bow to him; they do it on their own.

You haven't been around many Bishops have you? Believe me if someone is not familiar with the Rubrics involved, a lot of Bishops WILL demand the person follow those rubrics, including bowing, kissing their hand etc. I cannot imagine meeting Joel Osteen on the street and him demanding I kiss his hand or bow down to him. I HAVE seen Bishops do that very thing however. I also know of bishops who refuse to allow people to do it outside of Liturgical rites. It goes both ways, and in either case the appearance has nothing to do with it.

Quote

The bishop is not inventing all these things.

True of individual Bishops. Not true of the Church at large over many centuries. Many of these customs, rubrics and Liturgical acts are direct hold overs from non-Christian and even secular rites. Again I don't hold individual bishops responsible for being obedient to the Canons and the rubrics. I personally think liturgical rubrics are extremely important. In fact, some people would say I'm a stickler for rubrics. (I guess I probably am) That doesn't mean I find some of them a bit ridiculous and existing only to reinforce a dominance hierarchy. But still I obey them in Liturgical acts, but I'm still free to question them.

Quote

However, it is the bishop's choice to throw hissy-fits etc. But crown-wearing does not always mean hissy-fit-throwing.

True enough!

Quote

Joel Osteen has CHOSEN quite independently to act like a megalomaniac. Building a megachurch and putting yourself on a stage with a huge image of YOU is an action, not an appearance.

You do realize that is video screen in that image, right? And not just an icon of himself plastered on the wall?

It's a large screen so people in the "nose bleeds" can see what is going on. (the church used to be a basketball arena) It's no different than when the Pope visits the US and performs an outdoor Mass with huge video screens. Now I'm sure you think the Pope is a bad example to give, but do you really think if Orthodoxy was more successful it wouldn't use technology in the same way? You feel like having TV cameras is a sign of megalomania, well what about Orthodox Patriarchs walking hand in hand with secular authorities just so they can get their names in the NY Times and their pics on CNN? In Greece during Pascha they used to set up huge screens outside the cathedral in Athens for the Resurrection service, (I don't know if they still do) and yes, the Bishops just so happen to be in those images. Is that also megalomania? Of course not. But for some reason it is when Joel Osteen does it? That doesn't make sense.

There are reasons to criticize Joel Osteen, but so far he hasn't built any shrines to himself, named colleges after himself, or said that God speaks to him and through him, titled himself "doctor" or "Apostle", or done many of the things Protestant televangelists have over the years. Nor has he said or done some of the bizarre things oour own Patriarchs and Bishops have said and done over the centuries. Simply calling him names because he has a big Church with video screens so people in the rafters can see what's going on seems a pretty weak case. Especially for someone who is Orthodox. A religion where our most "humble" men dress like 13th century Emperors, and bash each others brains in at the site of Jesus Resurrection almost every year.

Look I'm not trying to bash our hierarchy, or say they shouldn't dress as a proper Bishop. As I said I'm a pretty big stickler for rubrics and beauty in the Liturgy. I find it weird seeing preachers dress in suits as opposed to vestments, and I'm certainly taken in by ornate vestments, crowns and crosses. We need to adorn God's house with beauty and the finest material, but we also should not, in my opinion do any of this blindly. Accepting it all "because the Church says so" is just not good enough for me. And criticizing a Protestant preacher for not being "humble" based on a single image, or second and third had reports of what you've "heard" about him just seems a bit strange considering that based on appearances alone, many of hour hierarchs are anything but humble.

Appearances are deceiving and so is reputation. If and when Joel Osteen begins building schools and naming them after himself, or calls himself "Apostle Joel" then I'll be right with you. But I just haven't seen much of the typical behavior you describe.

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Preist there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish apetites that consume us, are our own. }

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Preist there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish apetites that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Preist there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish apetites that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

Truth. Sounds like alot of hyperdox above to me...

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

"Is feeling 10 percent better about your life the good news promised in the Bible?" asks Joel J. Miller of Joel Osteen's preaching. "Is a marginal increase in your mood the best life God has to offer?" (Joel Miller is an editor/publisher for Thomas Nelson Publishing)

Quote

The Insufferable Joel Osteen by Joel Miller

Few things rub me the wrong way as much as poseurs masquerading as pastors. If that sounds unduly harsh, forgive me, but I don’t think this is undue.

Al Mohler recently published a piece on Joel Osteen’s equation of Mormonism with evangelical and Catholic Christianity. In a conversation with the Washington Times, Osteen said the faiths were basically similar on the “core” issues and he didn’t want to quibble about theological details. Mohler understandably cried foul and said that Osteen was being theologically irresponsible.

Mohler may sound like a crank to some, but I’m about to sound crankier still. Bear with me. It’s for a good cause.

While I read Mohler’s piece at the Christian Post, by the magic of internet advertising algorithms, up popped an ad for Osteen’s new book, Every Day a Friday. After troubling the air with audible groan, I ventured to Amazon to read some of the volume. I usually try to avoid such books, but I was already feeling unwell, so why not? It’s an insufferable, oozing mess of a book that hardly deserves the time it takes to criticize, but one thing needs attention.

“My purpose in writing this book is to help you arrange your mind so that you choose happiness each and every day,” says Osteen in chapter one, after which he mentions “a recent study that found happiness increases 10 percent on Fridays.” On this point hangs the central hope of the book. Some hope: Read my book and you can make your life 10 percent happier every day, not just the usual uptick you experience at the end of your workweek. I don’t think that’s is going to cut the mustard.

Osteen parades himself around as a minister of the gospel. Let’s be frank: The guy should be writing copy for Hallmark (best case scenario), not preaching the gospel. Is feeling 10 percent better about your life the good news promised in the Bible? Is a marginal increase in your mood the best life God has to offer?

Like I said, I’m cranky, but stay with me. Even the title of his book is offensive. Mohler chides Osteen for being negligent in the theology department. Nothing says that so simply and shouts it so loudly as the phrase “Every Day a Friday.”

The good news isn’t about Friday. It’s about Sunday. Christians gather to celebrate the eucharist on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, because it’s the day that Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus isn’t interested in boosting your mood a meager 10 percent. Jesus went to the grave on Friday, experienced the agony of execution on Friday, endured the passion of the cross on Friday, suffered and died on Friday so that he could set us free, redeem us, remake us, rejoin us to communion with the Father and each other on Sunday when he defeated sin, the devil, and death itself in the resurrection. Osteen’s elevation of the lightly elevated mood is absurd and silly by comparison. How about we make every day a Sunday instead?

In his talk with the Times Osteen said that he saw faith at an all-time high in America today. Super. But it doesn’t mean much if it’s a misdirected faith in good vibes and not the real hope of the good news.

(Personal note to Rev. Osteen: Here’s some job opportunity information for Hallmark I found. I didn’t see anything specific about this in the FAQ there, but to apply you shouldn’t have to do anything more than send a few copies of your complete published works.) http://joeljmiller.com/the-insufferable-joel-osteen/

"Is feeling 10 percent better about your life the good news promised in the Bible?" asks Joel J. Miller of Joel Osteen's preaching. "Is a marginal increase in your mood the best life God has to offer?" (Joel Miller is an editor/publisher for Thomas Nelson Publishing)

Quote

The Insufferable Joel Osteen by Joel Miller

Few things rub me the wrong way as much as poseurs masquerading as pastors. If that sounds unduly harsh, forgive me, but I don’t think this is undue.

Al Mohler recently published a piece on Joel Osteen’s equation of Mormonism with evangelical and Catholic Christianity. In a conversation with the Washington Times, Osteen said the faiths were basically similar on the “core” issues and he didn’t want to quibble about theological details. Mohler understandably cried foul and said that Osteen was being theologically irresponsible.

Mohler may sound like a crank to some, but I’m about to sound crankier still. Bear with me. It’s for a good cause.

While I read Mohler’s piece at the Christian Post, by the magic of internet advertising algorithms, up popped an ad for Osteen’s new book, Every Day a Friday. After troubling the air with audible groan, I ventured to Amazon to read some of the volume. I usually try to avoid such books, but I was already feeling unwell, so why not? It’s an insufferable, oozing mess of a book that hardly deserves the time it takes to criticize, but one thing needs attention.

“My purpose in writing this book is to help you arrange your mind so that you choose happiness each and every day,” says Osteen in chapter one, after which he mentions “a recent study that found happiness increases 10 percent on Fridays.” On this point hangs the central hope of the book. Some hope: Read my book and you can make your life 10 percent happier every day, not just the usual uptick you experience at the end of your workweek. I don’t think that’s is going to cut the mustard.

Osteen parades himself around as a minister of the gospel. Let’s be frank: The guy should be writing copy for Hallmark (best case scenario), not preaching the gospel. Is feeling 10 percent better about your life the good news promised in the Bible? Is a marginal increase in your mood the best life God has to offer?

Like I said, I’m cranky, but stay with me. Even the title of his book is offensive. Mohler chides Osteen for being negligent in the theology department. Nothing says that so simply and shouts it so loudly as the phrase “Every Day a Friday.”

The good news isn’t about Friday. It’s about Sunday. Christians gather to celebrate the eucharist on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, because it’s the day that Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus isn’t interested in boosting your mood a meager 10 percent. Jesus went to the grave on Friday, experienced the agony of execution on Friday, endured the passion of the cross on Friday, suffered and died on Friday so that he could set us free, redeem us, remake us, rejoin us to communion with the Father and each other on Sunday when he defeated sin, the devil, and death itself in the resurrection. Osteen’s elevation of the lightly elevated mood is absurd and silly by comparison. How about we make every day a Sunday instead?

In his talk with the Times Osteen said that he saw faith at an all-time high in America today. Super. But it doesn’t mean much if it’s a misdirected faith in good vibes and not the real hope of the good news.

(Personal note to Rev. Osteen: Here’s some job opportunity information for Hallmark I found. I didn’t see anything specific about this in the FAQ there, but to apply you shouldn’t have to do anything more than send a few copies of your complete published works.) http://joeljmiller.com/the-insufferable-joel-osteen/

"Is feeling 10 percent better about your life the good news promised in the Bible?" asks Joel J. Miller of Joel Osteen's preaching. "Is a marginal increase in your mood the best life God has to offer?" (Joel Miller is an editor/publisher for Thomas Nelson Publishing)

Quote

The Insufferable Joel Osteen by Joel Miller

Few things rub me the wrong way as much as poseurs masquerading as pastors. If that sounds unduly harsh, forgive me, but I don’t think this is undue.

Al Mohler recently published a piece on Joel Osteen’s equation of Mormonism with evangelical and Catholic Christianity. In a conversation with the Washington Times, Osteen said the faiths were basically similar on the “core” issues and he didn’t want to quibble about theological details. Mohler understandably cried foul and said that Osteen was being theologically irresponsible.

Mohler may sound like a crank to some, but I’m about to sound crankier still. Bear with me. It’s for a good cause.

While I read Mohler’s piece at the Christian Post, by the magic of internet advertising algorithms, up popped an ad for Osteen’s new book, Every Day a Friday. After troubling the air with audible groan, I ventured to Amazon to read some of the volume. I usually try to avoid such books, but I was already feeling unwell, so why not? It’s an insufferable, oozing mess of a book that hardly deserves the time it takes to criticize, but one thing needs attention.

“My purpose in writing this book is to help you arrange your mind so that you choose happiness each and every day,” says Osteen in chapter one, after which he mentions “a recent study that found happiness increases 10 percent on Fridays.” On this point hangs the central hope of the book. Some hope: Read my book and you can make your life 10 percent happier every day, not just the usual uptick you experience at the end of your workweek. I don’t think that’s is going to cut the mustard.

Osteen parades himself around as a minister of the gospel. Let’s be frank: The guy should be writing copy for Hallmark (best case scenario), not preaching the gospel. Is feeling 10 percent better about your life the good news promised in the Bible? Is a marginal increase in your mood the best life God has to offer?

Like I said, I’m cranky, but stay with me. Even the title of his book is offensive. Mohler chides Osteen for being negligent in the theology department. Nothing says that so simply and shouts it so loudly as the phrase “Every Day a Friday.”

The good news isn’t about Friday. It’s about Sunday. Christians gather to celebrate the eucharist on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, because it’s the day that Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus isn’t interested in boosting your mood a meager 10 percent. Jesus went to the grave on Friday, experienced the agony of execution on Friday, endured the passion of the cross on Friday, suffered and died on Friday so that he could set us free, redeem us, remake us, rejoin us to communion with the Father and each other on Sunday when he defeated sin, the devil, and death itself in the resurrection. Osteen’s elevation of the lightly elevated mood is absurd and silly by comparison. How about we make every day a Sunday instead?

In his talk with the Times Osteen said that he saw faith at an all-time high in America today. Super. But it doesn’t mean much if it’s a misdirected faith in good vibes and not the real hope of the good news.

(Personal note to Rev. Osteen: Here’s some job opportunity information for Hallmark I found. I didn’t see anything specific about this in the FAQ there, but to apply you shouldn’t have to do anything more than send a few copies of your complete published works.) http://joeljmiller.com/the-insufferable-joel-osteen/

-Hat tip to Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh for posting the above links on Facebook

Interesting afternoon reading! Kind of preaching to the choir on my part, but the comments are the best part. "Why are people talking about suffering; we're supposed to have abundant life!"

D'oh.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Priest there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish appetite that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

Could you explain this to me? I think if we read "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" for instance, we can be relatively confident that it has been approved by the church, our critical thinking would nearly be inappropriate, no? We may need the help of others to contextualise it some, but to be dismissive of it sounds ..... selective. Surely to experience the fullness of Orthodoxy we need the fullness of the Body to put it in proper perspective.

I would agree the more recent the writing the more careful one might need to be. The large influx of ex protestant converts with all their writings do need the passage of time within the Body to clean up any possible misunderstandings that may have been presented.

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Priest there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish appetite that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

Could you explain this to me? I think if we read "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" for instance, we can be relatively confident that it has been approved by the church,

I would agree the more recent the writing the more careful one might need to be. The large influx of ex protestant converts with all their writings do need the passage of time within the Body to clean up any possible misunderstandings that may have been presented.

One who takes great pride in practicing a maximalist expression of Orthodoxy and judges as inferior those who don't... IOW, "More Orthodox than thou"... A temptation to which new converts seem particularly susceptible...

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Priest there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish appetite that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

Could you explain this to me? I think if we read "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" for instance, we can be relatively confident that it has been approved by the church,

Who is the Church?

Who is the Body of Christ? I am a bit confused here what are you suggesting? The Church is "one holy catholic and apostolic Church;"

Perhaps not, but am I one who can discern the theological errors of these great teachings? Not nearly, If the Church declares their teachings heretical, I will,of course, trust the Church. If they don't, I will trust the traditions of the Church to protect me from misinterpretting those same readings. discussing with my Priest what I read (and discuss in forums). So are the Desert Fathers infallable? not my business I am incapable of knowing, Perhaps a lifetime in their shoes and I may grasp some of it.

I would agree the more recent the writing the more careful one might need to be. The large influx of ex protestant converts with all their writings do need the passage of time within the Body to clean up any possible misunderstandings that may have been presented.

One who takes great pride in practicing a maximalist expression of Orthodoxy and judges as inferior those who don't... IOW, "More Orthodox than thou"... A temptation to which new converts seem particularly susceptible...

I am not trying to judge anyone, I appreciate the challenges to my thinking. I would suggest this definition judges both ways not just one. One cannot use minimalistic or maximalistic, or hyperdox or whatever it's antonym might be, with out judging the other as inferior.

I originally stated I saw no point in listening to a protestant supposed "teaching" because it must be limitted to either me saying "he's got that one right, or at least close" or "he's wrong". Not: "wow, I never saw that truth before". The very best I could do is " Father, I was listening to this Protestant speaker the other day but he said this about so and so, does he understand this correctly?" My answer would likely be "Well St. ------ says this or that about it". So why look for partial truths when there are abundant and full truths right here?

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Priest there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish appetite that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

Could you explain this to me? I think if we read "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" for instance, we can be relatively confident that it has been approved by the church,

Who is the Church?

Who is the Body of Christ? I am a bit confused here what are you suggesting? The Church is "one holy catholic and apostolic Church;"

Are the Desert Fathers infallible?[/quote]Perhaps not, but am I one who can discern the theological errors of these great teachings? Not nearly, If the Church declares their teachings heretical, I will,of course, trust the Church. If they don't, I will trust the traditions of the Church to protect me from misinterpretting those same readings. discussing with my Priest what I read (and discuss in forums). So are the Desert Fathers infallable? not my business I am incapable of knowing, Perhaps a lifetime in their shoes and I may grasp some of it.

Surely to experience the fullness of Orthodoxy we need the fullness of the Body to put it in proper perspective.

What do you mean by "the fullness of the Body"? (A close corollary to my earlier question, "Who is the Church?")[/quote]I guess by "the fullness of the Body" I mean the Church in her entirety, again the church would be the apostolic, catholic Church

I would agree the more recent the writing the more careful one might need to be. The large influx of ex protestant converts with all their writings do need the passage of time within the Body to clean up any possible misunderstandings that may have been presented.

One who takes great pride in practicing a maximalist expression of Orthodoxy and judges as inferior those who don't... IOW, "More Orthodox than thou"... A temptation to which new converts seem particularly susceptible...[/quote]I am not trying to judge anyone, I appreciate the challenges to my thinking. I would suggest this definition judges both ways not just one. One cannot use minimalistic or maximalistic, or hyperdox or whatever it's antonym might be, with out judging the other as inferior.

I originally stated I saw no point in listening to a protestant supposed "teaching" because it must be limitted to either me saying "he's got that one right, or at least close" or "he's wrong". Not: "wow, I never saw that truth before". The very best I could do is " Father, I was listening to this Protestant speaker the other day but he said this about so and so, does he understand this correctly?" My answer would likely be "Well St. ------ says this or that about it". So why look for partial truths when there are abundant and full truths right here?

I have so many great examples I can follow for spiritual guidance, encouragement, humility ,etc through the Saints, I would not waste my time trying to find something partially truthful this guy might say. If I have to be discerning he can teach me nothing, I must measure each thought he has as to whether it corresponds with my knowledge of truth, a sure recipe for disaster, sooner or later I will be deceived.

With the Desert Father's I do not have to be discerning, we are unified with them in One Body, so if I disagree I must change, If I am confused, I have my Priest there to guide me. Within the One Body I am fed the truth of His Love, outside of it I am one more sheep without a shepherd, and I am just begging to be taken by the wolves,{ and all too often those wolfish appetite that consume us, are our own. }

Sorry to break this to you, but even within the Body we must be discerning.

Could you explain this to me? I think if we read "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" for instance, we can be relatively confident that it has been approved by the church,

Who is the Church?

Who is the Body of Christ? I am a bit confused here what are you suggesting? The Church is "one holy catholic and apostolic Church;"

Need I be suggesting anything by merely asking a question? You also answered my question, "Who is the Church?" with a reference to the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church," but that is merely a tautological reference that doesn't clarify anything. So I ask again, who is the Church? Of whom is the Church made up?

If they don't, I will trust the traditions of the Church to protect me from misinterpretting those same readings. discussing with my Priest what I read (and discuss in forums). So are the Desert Fathers infallable? not my business I am incapable of knowing, Perhaps a lifetime in their shoes and I may grasp some of it.

Let me reword my question. Are the Sayings of the Desert Fathers incapable of containing and teaching error?

We may need the help of others to contextualise it some, but to be dismissive of it sounds ..... selective.

Who's dismissing the Desert Fathers here?

If I must discern their teachings then mustn't I dismiss that which I would would discern to be bad teachings?

I suppose so. Did not St. Luke praise the Bereans for verifying that St. Paul was teaching doctrines consistent with the Scriptures? Why are we to be deemed arrogant and full of pride for submitting the Sayings of the Desert Fathers to the same scrutiny?

I would agree the more recent the writing the more careful one might need to be. The large influx of ex protestant converts with all their writings do need the passage of time within the Body to clean up any possible misunderstandings that may have been presented.

One who takes great pride in practicing a maximalist expression of Orthodoxy and judges as inferior those who don't... IOW, "More Orthodox than thou"... A temptation to which new converts seem particularly susceptible...

I am not trying to judge anyone, I appreciate the challenges to my thinking. I would suggest this definition judges both ways not just one. One cannot use minimalistic or maximalistic, or hyperdox or whatever it's antonym might be, with out judging the other as inferior.

I originally stated I saw no point in listening to a protestant supposed "teaching" because it must be limitted to either me saying "he's got that one right, or at least close" or "he's wrong". Not: "wow, I never saw that truth before". The very best I could do is " Father, I was listening to this Protestant speaker the other day but he said this about so and so, does he understand this correctly?" My answer would likely be "Well St. ------ says this or that about it". So why look for partial truths when there are abundant and full truths right here?

(Houston, TX) On Mother’s Day, Jay Bakker, son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, brought a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families to worship at Lakewood Church–the largest mega-church in the U.S. After the service, Bakker met privately with Lakewood’s pastor, Joel Osteen, to talk about faith, family, and LGBT people.

The visit is part of a nationwide fellowship effort called The American Family Outing, which aims to create dialogue between LGBT families and families at six American mega-churches. Several prominent mega-churches, including Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, and Hope Christian Church in Maryland, have agreed to meet lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families.....After the meeting, Bakker released the following statement:

“Joel Osteen and his family were very kind and courteous. They reserved special seats for our group of families, and they spoke compassionately to me on the first Mother’s Day since my mom’s death. But our conversation indicated that they do not share our convictions and that Lakewood Church is not yet ready for an open dialogue with LGBT families.

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 12:46:47 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The preacher and his family have partnered with "Survivor" producer Mark Burnett for a show about Lakewood Church's mission trips, the Associated Press reports. The show, which will focus on "people helping people," is expected to air some time in 2012."

« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 01:40:25 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The preacher and his family have partnered with "Survivor" producer Mark Burnett for a show about Lakewood Church's mission trips, the Associated Press reports. The show, which will focus on "people helping people," is expected to air some time in 2012."

I would totally watch a reality TV show about Joel Osteen's personal life.

Last thing we need to do with missions is put them on TV for public consumption. Through the producer of Survivor, no less!

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

Okay I'm getting my posts raked over pretty hard here but I will try this again.... without the quotes I am describing the Church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church;" I am not sure this is redundant as it gives it definition but I guess this is assumed being both orthodox. But I'm afraid I missed WHO is the church? The Holy Martyrs, the Saints, the "present" and "past" members of her body, and this includes me.

The Saints have gone before me, marking the "quicksand" as my sure destruction, showing me with the light of Scripture the path which is safe, warning me against the temptations of other paths and where they lead.

I may challenge some teachings, but in all humility. This is what I meant by defering to my preist. I have asked him what is meant by this or that and how does that fit in with this scripture or that practice, as it seems contradictory. But the Church holds the Truth, I may read what It has written over the ages and find many great teachings, if I disagree with what is canonical, I am errant and (I believe) considered a heretic, If it is non-canonical I do not necessarily have to agree, but I am warned not to create division by pressing my point of view.

I meant by being more careful of recent writings as the language can be misrepresented. As time passes someone may point differences or inconsistencies which were unintended or errant, these will be clarified by the Church. I have enjoyed more of these "newer" writings than other "older" writings, 'The Mystery of the Church' by Professor William Bush is one of my favorites.

The difference is, I do not need to understand, and sometimes I cannot understand, perhaps later I will, perhaps never. My understanding has nothing to do with truth. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Christ imparted all authority to the Church. I must submit to it. I cannot submit to myself, this is the blind leading the blind.

So how can I know the Church has the fullness of truth? I cannot except through faith.

Some one can drop a book of truths on my lap but I would twist and turn those truths to fit my thinking. Could I possibly grasp some of it's truth? Yes, possibly. Could I possibly stand next to one who participates in the very body which put this book of truths together. How about one who has used the practices and traditions of those who compiled the original writings of the book because they were taught this by people who walked, talked, prayed, fasted, baptised,etc with those who wrote the original writings ? Who would be better to listen too? Person A , who had the book dropped on their lap. Person B who participates in the Body, or Person C who has been so influenced by this book and these traditions that he diplays it like a cloak, something he wears rather than practices?

I am extremely cautious of TV evangelists. If we lived in Christianized Countries the popular message may be Christian. If it makes it to Media in my country, it concerns me. I have read some C.S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer etc. but during my time as catechumen and since have found no need to return, although I admit listening to audio of "Chronicles of Narnia" (though I heard the minimalists are trying to make C.S. Lewis a saint [ joking ]) .

The Church is more than the intellectual absorption of material, it is the living of it. As I live it, I begin to grasp its truths. I do not wait till I understand to start practicing it. I cross myself, confess, take Comunion, fast, pray and so on because these lead to spiritual health. The desert Fathers may well have errent teachings, but they also have spent alot more time living these and other practices of the church and been helped by them. My biggest struggle is putting down all these great books that tell me to live it and do my morning ... daily prayers, and recommended fasts. So if anything I struggle with being a minamalist, in a different way.

Yikes, I really don't want to see the responses to this. Where you see things I am saying that are wrong or need caution please explain, answering with questions leaves me dangling, just cut the rope already !

Okay I'm getting my posts raked over pretty hard here but I will try this again.... without the quotes I am describing the Church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church;" I am not sure this is redundant as it gives it definition but I guess this is assumed being both orthodox. But I'm afraid I missed WHO is the church? The Holy Martyrs, the Saints, the "present" and "past" members of her body, and this includes me.

The Saints have gone before me, marking the "quicksand" as my sure destruction, showing me with the light of Scripture the path which is safe, warning me against the temptations of other paths and where they lead.

I may challenge some teachings, but in all humility. This is what I meant by defering to my preist. I have asked him what is meant by this or that and how does that fit in with this scripture or that practice, as it seems contradictory. But the Church holds the Truth, I may read what It has written over the ages and find many great teachings, if I disagree with what is canonical, I am errant and (I believe) considered a heretic, If it is non-canonical I do not necessarily have to agree, but I am warned not to create division by pressing my point of view.

I meant by being more careful of recent writings as the language can be misrepresented. As time passes someone may point differences or inconsistencies which were unintended or errant, these will be clarified by the Church. I have enjoyed more of these "newer" writings than other "older" writings, 'The Mystery of the Church' by Professor William Bush is one of my favorites.

The difference is, I do not need to understand, and sometimes I cannot understand, perhaps later I will, perhaps never. My understanding has nothing to do with truth. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Christ imparted all authority to the Church. I must submit to it. I cannot submit to myself, this is the blind leading the blind.

So how can I know the Church has the fullness of truth? I cannot except through faith.

Some one can drop a book of truths on my lap but I would twist and turn those truths to fit my thinking. Could I possibly grasp some of it's truth? Yes, possibly. Could I possibly stand next to one who participates in the very body which put this book of truths together. How about one who has used the practices and traditions of those who compiled the original writings of the book because they were taught this by people who walked, talked, prayed, fasted, baptised,etc with those who wrote the original writings ? Who would be better to listen too? Person A , who had the book dropped on their lap. Person B who participates in the Body, or Person C who has been so influenced by this book and these traditions that he diplays it like a cloak, something he wears rather than practices?

I am extremely cautious of TV evangelists. If we lived in Christianized Countries the popular message may be Christian. If it makes it to Media in my country, it concerns me. I have read some C.S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer etc. but during my time as catechumen and since have found no need to return, although I admit listening to audio of "Chronicles of Narnia" (though I heard the minimalists are trying to make C.S. Lewis a saint [ joking ]) .

The Church is more than the intellectual absorption of material, it is the living of it. As I live it, I begin to grasp its truths. I do not wait till I understand to start practicing it. I cross myself, confess, take Comunion, fast, pray and so on because these lead to spiritual health. The desert Fathers may well have errent teachings, but they also have spent alot more time living these and other practices of the church and been helped by them. My biggest struggle is putting down all these great books that tell me to live it and do my morning ... daily prayers, and recommended fasts. So if anything I struggle with being a minamalist, in a different way.

Yikes, I really don't want to see the responses to this. Where you see things I am saying that are wrong or need caution please explain, answering with questions leaves me dangling, just cut the rope already !

Aren't hazings illegal in Orthodoxy

Actually, I find it better to ask questions if I don't understand someone clearly than to formulate my own often errant interpretation of what the other person is saying. Now that you have explained your position more clearly, I have no need to ask you any more questions at this moment.

The only response I would give is that if the Church is to be discerning, and if you are a member of that Church, then it follows logically that you must also work to be discerning--you can't just shut off your brain and leave it at the door when you walk into the building.

The only response I would give is that if the Church is to be discerning, and if you are a member of that Church, then it follows logically that you must also work to be discerning--you can't just shut off your brain and leave it at the door when you walk into the building.

Given that I've never liked tv preachers, I pay little attention to him. But from what I have seen of him, he seems to be into that wealth gospel movement. I've even heard he had an entire service without mentioning Jesus or mentioning Jesus very little.

He would come by the wealth "gospel" thing naturally. His dad John Osteen was one of the early pedlars of that snake oil. Joel strikes me as an Anthony Robbins style motivational speaker with a little health and prosperity laced Bible thrown in.